The art of human concealment has been practiced by game hunters since primeval times. It is likely that primitive hunters commonly employed native foliage, such as trees, shrubs, and brush, to create a screen which reduced the chance of their visual detection while lying in wait for easily alarmed quarry. Where the immediately available supply of foliage failed to produce necessary visual obscuration of the hunter, leafy branches and sprays could be gathered then transported to a promising hunting site for fashioning a crude, but effective blind from fresh foliage. This sort of hunting blind could have been fashioned to mimic so nearly the natural and undisturbed foliage found in and around the selected hunting site that, prior to the onslaught of the hunter, the blind itself, as well as the hunter, went unnoticed by approaching and passing game.
In modern times, much of the forest has been cleared for cities, farms and ranches or has been diverted to timber harvesting; and, the remainder that is suitable as habitat for wild game is either privately owned or its public use is managed by state or federal governmental agencies. Increasingly, private owners and governmental custodians of forests and brush lands prohibit cutting of live foliage by those permitted to enter such areas. Such prohibitions and regulations are intended to maintain the arboreal integrity and beauty of the forest; to preserve sufficient cover to protect and maintain a desired wildlife population; to prevent accumulations of dried out brush on the ground thereby reducing attendant fire hazards; and, to avoid degradation of wooded land used for grazing, timber production, and recreational purposes. Consequently, leafy brush freshly cut from live trees, shrubs or other native growth is seldom employed by hunters, photographers, naturalists, animal wardens or the like as a material for constructing natural-appearing artifices to mask their presence from prey or creatures they wish to photograph or otherwise observe in the wild.
Often times, lacking suitable natural cover yet prohibited from using severed foliage to erect a foliaged screen or blind, today's counterpart of the primitive hunters mentioned above have resorted to the placement of flexible sheets or panels of various camouflage materials over suitable supports to fashion enclosures which totally or partially surround and hide the user. Many patents have been previously issued for various enclosures of this kind, including: U.S. Pat. No. 5,010,909 to Cleveland, U.S. Pat. No. 5,613,512 to Bean, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,842,495 to Egnew et al.
Cleveland shows a rigid box-like enclosure comprising a rigid frame made of PVC tubing and having standing sides covered with flexible fabric.
The patented Bean blind is attached to a conventional tree stand and surrounds the stand structure and its occupant. Glass fiber rods are releasable secured to the seat frame along its sides and front and project upwardly to support upright camouflage panels.
The Egnew et al enclosure comprises-a collapsible skeletal frame made of a plurality of flexible, bow-shaped members having attached thereto a fabric covering. When erected, this tent-like structure has closed sides and a top which serve as a blind and shelter for one or more occupants.
Other prior art blinds of the enclosure type have rigid frames supporting flexible curtain walls The frame may be removably attached about a tree trunk with the frame and curtain looping about a hunter who is either seated in a stand or positioned on the ground at the base of the trunk.
A myriad of other blinds having rigid infrastructures which support one or more fabric panels to form an enclosure are widely available at sporting goods stores. This type of blind is also erected in the field by placing a panel of camouflage fabric over a frame fashioned of crude props such as a bush, a small tree or a fence.
Another category of commonly used concealment devices distinct from the human enclosures noted above is the frontal panel class exemplified by U.S. Pat. No. 4,332,266 to Wageley; U.S. Pat. No. 4,836,231 to Peterson; U.S. Pat. No. 4,838,525 to Snow et al; and, U.S. Pat. No. 5,214,872 to Buyalos.
The Snow et al patent depicts a basic upright, open sided protective shield made up of a plurality of flat corrugated panels hinged together to permit folding to a collapsed transport condition. When erected, ground penetrating support spikes maintain the shield in an upright orientation.
Wageley discloses a collapsible blind comprising an array of radially extending rods joined by an overlying semi-circular panel of camouflage netting or the like. A central upright rod is embedded in the ground and furnishes support for the remaining rods which fan out from the central rod to create a generally semi-circular, planar shield or barrier which is situated in front of a seated or crouching person.
Peterson shows a fan shaped planar structure similar to the Wageley folding blind; however, the rigid ribs of the Peterson device pivot about a common point for either collapsing or tensioning a sheet of flexible material attached to the ribs.
The Buyalos blind is essentially an adjustable umbrella device providing a standing curved plane behind which the user is screened from view.
Smaller planar shields are commonly attached to the limbs of hunting bows to conceal the bow and, to some extent, the archer as well. U.S. Pat. No. 4,817,579 to Mathias; U.S. Pat. No. 4,876,817 to Hill; and, U.S. Pat. No. 5,235,772 to Mendick disclose generally flat panels supported frontally of the bow on a suitable bracket. All of these panels comprise a rigid frame structure overlain by various flexible camouflage materials.
To enhance the stealthiness of both the enclosure type blinds and the upright frontal shields, their structural frames are sometimes covered with flexible panels to which are attached three dimensional artificial leaves thereby more or less emulating the appearance of natural foliage. Such leafy material is also commonly used to make camouflaged outerwear for users of the blinds just discussed.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,813,441 to Kepley depicts a blind attachment for camouflaging a hunter's tree seat wherein the attachment holds severed natural brush in an upright position along the front and sides of the seat structure. Due to the fact that foliage, once severed, will shortly lose its vital appearance and its leaves will begin to shrivel and discolor, such deteriorated foliage will become discernible against a background of living foliage. Moreover, significant leaf shrivelling and loss will eventually expose the hunter and his equipment unless the brush is refurbished periodically or is replaced entirely if successive uses of the seat are spaced by more than a short time. Depending on their freshness and diameter, branches of natural brush tend to be either springy or brittle and, therefore, limit a user's ability to bend such branches to alter the natural shape or opacity of such foliage. Kepley suggests that the user alter the quantity or type of cut brush to achieve such results. Of course, cutting foliage in sufficient quantities to be effective would alter the natural environment surrounding the hunting site; and, for that reason, would be insensitive to preservation ethics and might violate local restrictions and laws.
Blinds constructed in accordance with the teachings of the aforenoted patents and others presently available have some or all of the following structural and operational shortcomings:
1. In spite of the best efforts to camouflage fabric-over-frame blinds to achieve a totally natural appearance, none successfully approximates the appearance of the trunks, branches and leaves of a tree or shrub in its natural state. Because modern camouflaged blinds typically include a rigid skeletal framework overlain by highly opaque material, the marginal delineations of such blinds are easily detectable against any naturally arboreous background even in dim lighting. Moreover, to approaching animals, the light reflectiveness of the blind material contrasts with the light diffusive nature of the natural background and betrays to animals the presence of a foreign object having the unfamiliar size and outline of the blind. Thus blinds of the enclosure and frontal shield types effectively hide the user; however, the blind per se usually remains easily detectable by most wild game thereby defeating the basic purpose of such blinds.
In an effort to disguise the blind structure itself, modifications of conventional camouflage fabrics to produce a sort of floppiness are suggested by Hill U.S. Pat. No. 4,876,817 and by Egnew U.S. Pat. No. 5,842,495; and, leafy blind material is commercially available. However, the most realistic of foliaged fabrics betray, unavoidably, the general outline of an overlain skeletal structure. Furthermore, the shape, size and coloration of the simulant foliage may not harmonize with those of the background foliage at the chosen hunting site. Frequent adjustments of such foliage characteristics to accommodate seasonal changes or different foliage backdrops would require either the installation of different leafy panels on a given blind structure or, alternatively, substitution of an entirely different blind having suitable leaf characteristics. Users of known blinds would find such alternative solutions to be expensive, troublesome and generally impractical.
Since known types of conventionally fabricated blinds present to an approaching animal a visible and unnatural appearing perimetrical edge, exposure of a human or a weapon beyond such fixed edge is almost certain to alert an animal immediately. Artificial foliation placed proximate the blind's edges will not prevent detection of a substantial projection therebeyond such as the hunter's head or a gun barrel or bow. Even if the hunter's hat and face were camouflaged and his weapon were covered with leafy material, as is commonly practiced, such projections beyond the blind would likely present highly discernible moving silhouettes.
2. To avoid the need to peer around the top or side of a blind from time to time in a manner that would likely alert nearby wildlife, a common practice is to provide blind walls with viewing windows and gun ports through which weapons are aimed and discharged. Such windows and ports not only present discontinuities in the visual blending and blurring afforded by conventional camouflage material covering the apertured blind wall, but also draw attention to their marginal edges as do the boundaries of the blind itself. Unless a sizeable number of openings are cut in the blind's walls, user visibility therethrough and available shooting lanes are limited.
3. The weight and bulk of blind enclosures and shields accommodating even a lone hunter can be substantial due to the need for some sort of rigid metal or wooden frame upon which to mount the blind's camouflage covering. Moreover, necessary supporting poles and elongated braces are not easily transportable through wooded and brushy areas. Even where collapsible or knock-down blinds are used, their transport presents an arduous task when the hunting site is remote and inaccessible to vehicles whereby the blind must be packed in by the hunter with his other equipment.
4. Due to their weight or bulk, many blind structures are partially disassembled for easier transport and are reassembled upon arrival at the hunting site. Other prior art blinds are made collapse in order to facilitate their transport and are subsequently returned to their erected condition for hunting purposes. However, when a disassembled blind is reassembled or a collapsed blind is erected at the hunting site, two possible problems may be confronted: firstly, even a short delay at the hunting site occasioned by setting up a blind structure can cause an unfortunate loss of time during the most favorable period of the day; and, secondly, unavoidable noise and air-borne dispersion of human scent incident to the assembly or erection of the blind can alert the quarry to the hunter's presence.
5. In windy or breezy conditions, many known types of blinds having wind-impervious side panels, curtains or other planar surfaces have a tendency to kite whereby transporting and erecting such blind components is made more difficult and tiring. Flexible blind components which flap or are otherwise vibrated by wind produce audible sounds unfamiliar to wild game; and, a fluctuating blind wall may interfere with the sighting and shooting of weapons through or around the wall. In high winds, a windblown panel may be damaged or displaced to such an extent that the presence of the hunter is revealed.
From the preceding recitation of specific problems and long standing shortcomings encountered by users of prior art human concealment devices, it will be appreciated that an improved blind construction intended to supersede presently available blinds should have at least these objectives, characteristics and advantages:
1. A quintessential characteristic of any blind is that it should not have to be hidden or disguised, i.e. the blind should not draw the attention of wild life due to its inherent opacity, sharp marginal demarcation or silhouette. PA0 2. The visible parts of the blind should be fabricated entirely of simulated, life size foliage the character of which can be selected within a broad range of shapes and colors that can be easily varied at a later time if and when changed backgrounds dictate. PA0 3. The foliar blind components should be sufficiently spaced and open, as opposed to conventional tight-knit fabric or solid plastic panels, to afford the user substantially unrestricted vision in all directions. The degree of the foliage's openness, its shape, and its circumpositioning about the user should be readily and infinitely adjustable. Additionally, the structural elements of the blind should be manually bendable to take a set. PA0 4. A surprising aspect of this invention is that the simulated foliar structure of the blind can be readily positioned and thereafter maintained in surrounding relation to the user simply by his plastically deforming the structure. PA0 5. Since most blind erection sites are off road, it is highly desirable that the blind structure be sufficiently light in weight and compact to be quickly moved in its assembled condition thereby avoiding the usual loss of time, production of noise and scent dispersal occasioned by reassembly of the blind at or near the hunting site. PA0 6. The foliar components of the blind should collapse or compress together with expenditure of little time and effort to a compact configuration which is readily transportable through brushy and woody terrain. Upon reaching the hunting site, the blind should be capable of rapid restoration to its fully arrayed condition solely by the user's bending selected limbs, branches, and stems and leaves to shield or surround himself as desired. PA0 7. Plural foliar components of a given arborescent structure should have like ends of their main limbs anchored in a common mounting means which arrays the limbs in a fan-like manner and permits selective positioning of the limbs with respect to one another. PA0 8. The blind should include a simple and effective mounting device for detachably connecting the foliar structure to a wide range of supports such as the trunk of a tree or bush, a post or stake set in the ground, a tree stand, a bow, a land or water vehicle or a human body.